Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

Read: [Exposing Christianity](https://web.archive.org/web/20210618201657/https://www.satanslibrary.org/ExposingChristianity/EXPOSING_CHRISTIANITY_MAIN.html) Read: [Jewish Kabbalah Exposed](https://www.kabbalahexposed.com/) https://www.ancient-forums.com/

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (98).
[–] • 1 pt

The red flag for me was when I learned protestants removed parts of the Bible. And the jew worship.

I challenge protestants on "why are jews Gods chosen ? God says they are the Synagogue of Satan, dont you think that following them might be bad ?"

They always default to "oh it doesnt say that in the Bible, oh thats Old Testament (God legit never said Old Testament doesnt apply to Christians), oh its not Jesus who said it, oh you racist and try to twist the Bible". These motherfukers will legit rather ignore God then stop sucking jews.

My favorite also: "Bible was written in hebrew so they know best" NO IT WASNT, it was actually written in Aramaic for Old Testament and Greek for New.

[–] • 0 pt

Well, there was the Hebrew and Aramaic OT, which existed in the Masoretic texts, and the Greek OT, which was the Septuagint. By Jesus's day, they were all using the Septuagint which contained the Deuterocanon while the Masoretic texts didn't. Luther asked the Jews of his day which they were using and so he went with the Masoretic texts and was able to toss things like Macabees where they pray for the souls of the dead. Fun fact: Luther also wanted to axe the Epistle of St. James.

Modern scholarship, including the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that the Hebrews in Jesus' day were using the Septuagint, just like Church Tradition said. The Deuterocanon is really good, and I especially like Sirach and Tobit.

The history of the Biblical Canon is really interesting, and such a shame that it is virtually unknown in Protestant circles. Even now, the Orthodox and Copts have different Canons of Scripture with some Ethiopians still using Enoch in their OT.

[–] • 0 pt

I think Enoch is integral to understanding the Bible.

[–] • 0 pt

Eh... it is definitely an interesting read, but its historicity and authenticity is sketchy (which is why it isn't in the Orthodox and Catholic Canon) and should be taken with a grain of salt.